This is one of relatively few movies that I have watched more than twice, so obviously I like it. My most recent viewing came because I ran across the remastered version and decided to watch it again after many years.
I was never one of those kids who was into dinosaurs growing up. I was more into DC comic book heroes and their TV counterparts. But I like how realistic monsters and dinosaurs are looking since I started watching these films as an adult. It was awesome the first time I watched it, and Jurassic Park still seems like the finest example of special effects up until that point.
As far as the plot and the story details are concerned, however, it is quite ordinary. A man who doesn’t like children becomes their caretaker when danger threatens them; an embittered consultant dabbles in corporate theft; a wisecracking chaos theorist who proves to be correct in a few predictions, though it is never explained why he was chosen to evaluate the theme park in the first place. And like the security personnel in the old Star Trek episodes, several characters are earmarked for destruction so the the core of characters we are supposed to care about can all survive.
But I am not dissing all of this, just saying that the story is a rather ordinary framework to display the awesome graphics of dinosaurs in motion. But the humor is good, Jeff Goldblum is great (but then I even like him in Apartment.com commercials) and it is all well done. It is just that the film will never make one of my top 10 lists and, finally at this late date, I may have watched it for the last time.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
Many films age quite well, but Jurassic Park (1993) undoubtedly holds up better than most. From its memorable score to the still impressive animatronics, without forgetting its iconic characters, Steven Spielberg truly is a magnificent filmmaker. Remains as suspenseful as ever.
Rating: A+

This is my idea of a perfect movie. I mean, it's not perfect, perfect, but it's pretty close. To start off the score is just amazing and iconic and really drives the awe of this film. And these characters are developed so quickly but are also so good. All of the actors give fantastic performances. Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough give classic performances and even the supporting actors like Wayne Knight, Samuel L. Jackson, and especially Bob Peck as Muldoon. What really struck me this time I watched it was how the action really doesn't even start until halfway through the movie, and then from there the action is nonstop.
I think that since it was paced like this, it allows us to get attached to the characters which makes the action so much more impactful and suspenseful. And even with that first hour that is primarily dialogue, it's still so engaging since the script is tightly written, it has some compelling conversations on the control that humans have, is well shot, and has some humor that feels natural in the dialogue and is in character. The humor is never forced in situations that are tense unless it's expected form that character, like Ian Malcolm.
And then that second half... my God, it's so good. This isn't an action movie to me, it's a suspenseful thriller. There's no humans fighting dinosaurs, exploding cars and planes, and the action is used relatively sparingly. The CGI is also used sparingly and only when it is needed. Both the practical effects and CGI look great still. Speilberg really crafted amazing characters, tense scenes like with the Tyrannosaurus breakout and the Raptors in the kitchen, and iconic shots. This was my favorite movie as a kid because of the cool-looking dinosaurs, and is still one of my favorites because of it's insanely great characters and suspenseful scenes.

"Life finds a way… to let us enjoy dinos in theaters"
Filthy rich millionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is about to open a dinosaur theme park. He invites a couple of experts to satisfy his investors. During a preview tour things go awfully wrong.
While ‘Jurassic Park’ is too simplistic to be a perfect movie it is blockbuster cinema at its very best. Spielberg grabs you by the throat from the get go and you instantly know you’re in for quite a ride.
The story is simple but effective. Author Michael Crichton did his very best to make the cloning dinosaurs part plausible. When you have living giant meat-eaters in your amusement park it’s not hard to come up with something which causes things to go south so fast before you can say T-rex.
The movie works because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. The characters are somewhat underdeveloped but their main purpose is to serve as dino treats. The Ian Malcolm character (Jeff Goldblum) is of little use but he’s funny. Grumpy Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) is the perfect counterpart. You can’t help but root for these characters.
What makes the movie stand out are the ground-breaking special effects. Even to this day it’s remarkable what ILM and Stan Winston’s crew achieved. Although a 'Jaws' approach would have perhaps worked better (Love the shot of the T-rex’ leg in the mud) the dinos look so realistic.
What ‘Jurassic Park’ does have in common with 'Jaws' is John Williams’ score. Although not as ominous and iconic as 'Jaws', Williams went for wonderment this time around. Perhaps not regarded as his most famous work it’s amazing. When the experts travel to the island Williams’ score does indeed give you a sense of wonderment. The scene where the visitors first lay eyes on the dinosaurs is movie magic.
Rereleased for its 25th anniversary it’s safe to say we rarely have had more fun in the cinema than while watching 'Jurassic Park'.

I love it. There are movies coming out right now, 25 years later, with triple the budget (even _Jurassic_ movies) where the effects just cannot hold a candle to _Jurassic Park_. If that was the **only** thing it had going for, it would be enough for me to recommend this movie for all, but make no mistake, _Jurassic Park_ is **great** with or without them (but thank God it's with).
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

If you somehow missed this movie and have never seen it then watch it immediately. As a young boy of 9 on my way to the cinema I wasn't at all prepared for the on-screen awesomeness I was about to witness, one of the defining movies of my childhood and of the modern age. With special effects that simply blew any and all previous dino movies out of the water, compelling story and the odd comic moment such as the Mr Arnolds arm it really did make that evening something I will remember forever. So successful it went on to spawn 3 sequels, the second was enjoyable, the third not so much. The newest Chris Pratt one, I'll leave that for you but its worth a watch, especially if you want to wash the taste of the 3rd one out of your mouth. It gave me nightmares for weeks, really really wonderful nightmares.

Bunny rabbit "Judy" is determined that she is going to be the first of her kind to make it into the ranks of the "Zootropolis" police force. Her boss, "Bogo" is not so enthusiastic, so it's lucky that an otter has gone missing and that she can promise his wife that she will track him down! As she delves deeper into the mystery, she encounters the street-smart fox "Nick" and together they gradually uncover a plot to turn the city's predator population into dangerous menaces and that that scheming runs all the way to City Hall! It's now up to these two to put aside their mutual suspicions and work together if they are to thwart this dastardly plan! The story itself, here, isn't really anything new - but along the way some effort has been made to create some fun characterisations. Not least the painfully slow sloth doing the vehicle checks, the sheepish assistant mayor "Bellweather" as well as just about every beast from jungle and pasture alike. The script is often quite funny allowing the partnership to evolve at quite an entertaining pace and there are plenty of escapades en route to the slightly left-field denouement... Unlike many of it's Disney contemporaries, there has been investment in a solid story and it comes across well in this enjoyable and characterful family drama.

I like 'Zootopia', it's much better than I had anticipated.
First off, the animation is superb - as we expect from Disney of course, but that doesn't change the fact. Ginnifer Goodwin (Judy) leads the cast very well, while Jason Bateman gives the most memorable performance as Nick. Idris Elba and Jenny Slate (not Edie Falco or Constance Shulman, as I initially guessed... just me? Probably) are good too.
The premise is actually my favourite part of this film. I'm not saying it's anything revolutionary, but it actually feels fresh throughout - I enjoyed seeing it play out, it's paced perfectly. There's a nice 'Breaking Bad' reference in there, too.
An entertaining 2016 animated film, one that also has a positive message. Recommended.

Why I find Zootopia revolutionary
=============================
1. The creative design of the titular city, and the astonishing world building.
2. Using colors and deliberately simple animation not just to make the movie appeal to children, but also to indicate the so-called ideal city of Zootopia where every animal is pure and innocent.
3. Blending more than one genre into a single animated film while keeping the plot spotless and not messy.
4. Delivering many contemporary messages and tackling some quite touchy timely themes that have never been explored in an animated film before. And by giving the priority to the center message, that of prejudice, nothing felt muddled and all over the place, since no message overshadowed the other.
5. Using the on-the-surface message (achieve one's ambition) as a characteristic of the main character (Judy Hopps), not as the actual main message. That makes this message works as a motive not as a major theme in the movie as in, for instance, Wreck-It Ralph (I LOVE it, though ♥).
6. Avoiding being over-sentimental, although Nick's character could have been easily used to manipulate our feelings.
This movie is an absolute masterpiece. Not only because its wonderful way that gives its many messages in, but also because the importance of its messages in themselves, and how smart and relevant they are. Today, children really need to be taught these morals.
The talented cast's voices fit their characters perfectly. It has a plenty of funny scenes littered with extremely hilarious jokes which we haven't heard before in any animated movie, or even in a live-action movie. This movie blends so many genres: Comedy, Adventure, Action, Crime, and Mystery. That said, you will never feel confused while watching it.
The characters are definitely some of the most complicated characters I've ever seen in an animated movie. Each character has its own point of view due to the experiences they had, and thus makes each character has different motives and feelings.
(10/10)

Zootopia is an allegorical tale which subtly takes on vast topics like racism, politics and society. It explores these underlying philosophical themes in a rather humorous manner! Everything, right from the characters to the storyline, is just top notch!
It’s similar to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, just the underlying issues are different in this one. It’s definitely worth watching!
Overall, Zootopia is a brilliant movie! I would give it a rating of** 4/5**

This film is named 'Zootopia' in the US but the title was changed when it was shown in the UK. I thought it is a very good children's film. Very well animated. Colourful. Really cute animals.
It is a great parable about tolerance and racism which could be seen as a mirror to the xenophobia in society today. The story is of a rabbit called Judy Hopps who overcomes diversity to become a police officer in the city of Zootropolis (Zootopia). This is a very tough city full of crime and only strong predators take charge. Judy must help to solve the case of predators disappearing around the city but needs to fight her colleagues' prejudices at the same time.
The jokes are funny and the story is intriguing. The film contains lots of references to other films which will keep viewers of all ages happy (including a very funny Breaking Bad spoof).
The voice acting is very good and each actor perfectly adds to their character.
★★★★

This is a really, really good animated family movie. It is a perfect blend of funny characters, decent story and little jokes spread around in the animation.
Almost all characters are very likable and funny, each in a different way. The actual story has quite a bit of suspense (for an animated family film) while still being sufficiently light and funny. Actually it is kind of two stories. One is the story of Judy Hopps fighting to prove herself as a police officer and the other is the more sinister evil plot that she attempts to unravel.
The movie moves at a good enough speed leaving enough room to both tell the story itself and inserting jokes and comical situations. The two bureaucratic sloths were quite fun already in their first scenes but the last scene with them at the very end of the movie was absolutely hilarious.
The animation itself was certainly adequate although I sometimes miss the old hand drawn animations from Walt Disney.
Overall, one of the better, if not the best, animated movie I have watched in quite a while.

_Zootopia_ leans pretty hard on a few tropes that I absolutely detest, but even I can't deny that this animated family movie succeeds spectacularly at what it set out to do: Entertain all audiences, young & old, and deliver an important moral centre without detracting from its engaging plot. Something rarely achieved by the medium outside of Pixar. And even Pixar has had a few missteps the past years.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

A great movie with a great message. Read my full review here.
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/zootopia-review

Zootopia is the latest family animation movie from Disney about a young bunny determined to be a cop at all costs – in a land where only 'predators' are cops, she would be the first ‘prey’ cop. Seriously? Anyway, she puts on the hard work and makes it to the land where anything is possible.
Zootopia makes some good real life comparisons: Zootopia itself seems to look like New York, even including a hustle by a sly fox. Racism seems to be ever present in both color and speech. But the best thing about Zootopia is Judy’s positive attitude and relentless determination to succeed.
The animation is as good as a Pixar animation – perfectly made – and the story is well told, full of action scenes and funny moments. Kids will definitely love this one and grown up kids will enjoy the deep thought provoking tones set in this movie.
The best performance in this movie arguably comes from Police Chief Bogo whose voice is played by Idris Elba. His performance should earn him an Oscar this year! No wonder it has grossed 1 Billion dollars worldwide despite little marketing.
Rated 9 out of 10 only because we cannot give it a 10.

> Try everything (but differently). So Disney has done it again.
This beautiful animation came to exist because of coming together of the directors of 'Tangled' and 'Wreck-it-Ralp'. It is Disney who had once again done it, since their rival Pixer is going down in a rapid speed. As a Disney fan since my childhood, I'm very happy for their success in live-shot films and animations, especially for this one.
Okay, since the revolution of 3D animation over 20 years ago after overthrowing the 2D animation, most of the big productions like Disney, Pixer and Dreamworks with few others never failed to deliver. Believe me, I was not interested in this film when I first saw the teaser and trailer. But they have done great promotions and so the film did awesomely at screens worldwide. I was totally blown away after seeing it, Disney's another unique universal charactered story. From the little children to the grown ups, everybody definitely going to enjoy it.
All kinds of animals coming together happens only in cinemas, and that too mostly in animations. But todays kids are very sharp who ask lots of questions, so they had a fine explanation for the doubts regarding putting animals in a same society. It was like the United States, where everyone came from different continents and represents different race. And so in this film every animal came from different land to live together peacefully in a city called Zootopia.
So the story begins when Judy the rabbit follows her dream to become a police officer in Zootopia. There she meets Nick the fox, who are actually arch-rival species in the wild, but it was thousands of years ago before adapting the civilisation. So trust is what not promised between them, but they're forced to work together after a small missing person case becomes their prime agenda. Solving the mystery is what brings the end to this wonderful tale.
These days animations are not just concentrated on comedies, trying to get us emotionally as well. Maybe that's how they're grabbing the adult audience, especially the families. Shakira's cameo was the highlight, and her song 'Try Everything' helped the get attention from all the corners.
The Oscars was concluded just a couple of months ago, but it already feels like the fever is gripping again for the next edition and looks like this film is leading the way for the animation category. I know it's too early, but I hope it wins it. And finally a request for the Disney, bring it on a sequel as soon as possible.
8/10

One of the best movies Disney has created in the last years. Smart plot with a great background topic talking about the differences, stereotypes, prejudices and joining the tendency of giving women more important roles.
It has still several gaps to fill and enhance on the latest point but it is, IMHO, a milestone in the right direction.
The characters work pretty well and it is funny when needed and not too full of cheesy songs.

I quite liked the look of the new house that "Chihiro" and her parents were to move to, but she isn't so keen, and being ten had the weight of the world on her shoulders. En route to meet the removal men, her dad takes a wrong turning and soon, together with her mum, end up at the end of a tunnel. What would you do? Go in of course! Luckily it's quite a short walk before they find themselves in a small village that's full of shops all laid out for a banquet. Mum and dad tuck in but the young girl just wants to get going. Ignored, she explores a little as they gorge themselves and that's when she encounters the young "Haku" who suggests that she might like to leave. Snag is - her parents have quite literally now gone a bit porcine and she's going to have to rely on her new friend if she is to rescue them from an impending visit to the abattoir. A job is her first task, and for that she needs a contract with the wart-nosed witch "Yubaba" - and so off we go on a series of marvellously creative escapades discovering some coal spirits; that her friend has a secret identity; her boss an huge great baby and the entire place serves as a sort of bathhouse for the enigmatic "No Face" whose agenda isn't clear to anyone, though we do know he has a rapacious appetite and can make his own gold! The detail of the animation is astonishing and coupled with the mysticism of ancient Japanese folk lore works really well at creating a characterful and engaging story. I just love the lithe dragons of Oriental mythology as opposed to the scaly, stodgy, European ones. The concept of identity underpins much of the narrative here, with not just "Chihiro" but pretty much everyone else coming to terms with flaws and strengths in their personalities requiring a degree of human spirit, trust and forgiveness if ever anyone is to thrive and if ever she and her folks are to get to that new house on the hill. It's two hours really goes fly by and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

One of the great "masters" of the anime art. Somehow, if I would personally associate "Akira" to "self-destruction", then this anime would be the opposite :)

Faced with imminent annihilation, over 400,000 troops are stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk facing bombardment from superior Nazi air and land power. Christoper Nolan manages to condense into the next 95 minutes the grimness of the situation, and the sheer determination of the ordinary soldiers; how they deal with fear, learn to trust and co-operatate with others from many different nations - as the logistical nightmare that is repatriating them gradually is taking shape. We take the perspective of three individuals as they try to survive and get home and really do get a sense of the existential threat they each face; some more bravely than others. The events are historical fact, but the performances from Fionn Whitehead, Barry Keoghan are superb and perfectly plausible. A great supporting cast with Tom Hardy, Sir Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance amongst many all contributed to the authenticity of this expertly photographed (frequently using much more intimate POV-style coverage) production from Oscar nominated Hoyte Van Hoytema. The paucity of script also helped convince of the atrocity of their situation - definitely a case of less being more.

Yes.

**Considering the quality and talent of those involved, the budget and all the variables, the film is unforgivably disappointing.**
The Dunkirk disaster was one of the opening moments of World War II: in the face of the unstoppable advance of German troops, a mixture of British, Belgian and French soldiers were pushed into the English Channel, fortifying themselves in the French city of Dunkirk. The prospects could not be worse: in a few weeks, hundreds of thousands of exhausted Allied soldiers found themselves surrounded by a powerful Panzer division and under constant attack by German aviation, having no port capable of evacuation, which would be carried out by smaller vessels in the so-called “Operation Dynamo”. And everything indicated that, after France, it would be England that suffered the German invasion, so the British could not be more apprehensive.
Despite the fact that the film paints the episode in a positive light (trying to highlight the ability that the British had to successfully evacuate their troops), there is no doubt that Dunkirk was a disaster and is, even today, one of the most humiliating moments of British military history, comparable to a similar situation that occurred in 1809 in A Coruña, where British soldiers also found themselves between the sea and the enemy, this time Napoleon's army. Moreover, this film turns out to be a kind of remake of a film with the same name and the same theme made in the 50s.
Directed by Christopher Nolan (a talented and fashionable director), the film has a cast full of strong names in the industry. Mark Rylance has the most prominence in the role of a civilian, owner of a small yacht, who decides to go personally to rescue soldiers with his sons. Tom Hardy also gives us an excellent job, in the role of a British aviator who helps as he can. Cillian Murphy is believable in his work, giving us an idea of the shock a soldier can experience in a combat situation. Harry Styles and Aneurin Barnard also deserve a positive note. Sir Kenneth Branagh stands out, embodying the figure of British stoicism, but I found his character somewhat forced to be more impassive than would be plausible in that situation.
Despite its merits, it is an indisputably cold and unexciting film. Anyone expecting incredible shootouts or grandiose battle scenes will be disappointed and have to settle for some good dogfight-style fighter combats and some more tense scenes, but which never materialize in combat scenes worthy of a great war movie. And considering the number of soldiers surrounded there, one would expect to see a crowd of soldiers... however, this only happens occasionally, and it even seems that production has saved on the means. Written in a simplistic way, the script distracts attention and places more emphasis on what is happening in the sea and in the sky, so the German threat is something that we don't quite understand and that the film doesn't waste time explaining. With me, that wasn't a problem, but the worst History students will have to read a little to find out what's going on. The characters are also not developed: there is no concrete villain because the enemy soldiers are collectively, so there is also no undisputed protagonist character.
Technically, it has several merits and demerits to consider. On the one hand, it is an authentic visual spectacle thanks to a masterful filming work and a remarkable and very well crafted cinematography. The sound also deserves praise thanks to very good effects, very well-used and, of course, a tense and efficient soundtrack signed by Hans Zimmer (in yet another collaboration with Nolan). Unfortunately, the editing is bad and, if the script already had flaws, the non-linear narrative accentuated them even more, making the film confusing and strange.

It starts off well, with a little glimpse of a British Soldier that was as unprepared as the UK for the war. It's a nice teaser...
...then a little story about the civilian involvement with the evacuation...
...And it all comes with the promise of being a British "Saving Private Ryan."
Unfortunately it ends up being a lot more Michael Bay than Steven Spielberg. that is to say that it looks nice and sleek and professional but is otherwise lacking in a real story.
Spielberg managed to tell a story that was both pro-Soldier and anti-war, and that made the whole Normandy Beach until the very end a pleasure to watch.
Dunkirk, on the other hand, gives up about 15 Minutes in and decides to just focus on the action with the story being an after thought.
In short it's boring.

Very good.
'Dunkirk', as you'd expect given the director, is extremely well made. I particularly enjoyed how the film is shot, the sound editing and the score. It's a watchable story about an event from World War II.
I wouldn't, personally, say there's a standout cast performer. I don't mean that negatively, it's just more a film about a group of people rather than individuals - which I assume was the intention. There are still good performances, from the likes of Tom Glynn-Carney and Jack Lowden. It also features star names, including Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and Mark Rylance.
The music and how the sequences are crafted is what elevates this film up, while the pacing is almost spot on - they could easily have made this 2hr 15mins+, like most war films seem to do, but keeping it at around 1hr 47mins was a smart choice. I do still feel like it could've been greater, yet I still got entertainment from it.

I have put off viewing this film for quite a while. The main reason for this is that I am somewhat reluctant watching a movie where the story is pretty well known before you sit down to watch it. However a few days ago I finally did and, given all the hype, I have to say that I expected more, a lot more.
Sure the movie is a cinematically very well down movie. Acting, camera and all that is excellent. Unfortunately that is all there is.
First of all, where the hell did the over-inflated budget go? Dunkirk was a major undertaking with almost 400 000 soldiers involved and hundreds and hundreds of boats. We get to see what? A few columns of soldiers, a handful of boats and three pitiful spitfires against a bomber and two Fock Wulfes. To add to this insult we pretty much get to see the same bloody event over and over from different angles. This is an insult to all the brave men that made this rescue possible.
There are a few likable people in the movie. Like the Navy commander and the elderly guy on the pleasure boat steaming to rescue. The rest are either psychotic or morons.
Realism? Not so much. Like the scene where a bunch of soldiers are trapped in a boat being shot to pieces. Would any one in their right mind really have thought they could plug dozens and dozens of holes with their hands and then sail across the channel?
Then we have the spitfire which runs out of fuel and glides around forever over the beach so the director can get some scenic shots done. Other times fairly large boats gets damaged and flips over in seconds.
I would also have expected some pre-story. Some build up. But no, the story starts right away with these measly handful of boats and planes taking for bloody ever to drag themselves over to where they are supposed to go.
Quite a disappointment indeed.

Okay first off, who came up with the idea "Let's all cast guys who look exactly the same"? With all the jumping around in the story I could not tell who was where and what was going on half the time. I see what he was trying to do on the cinematic side but it made it difficult as the viewer to fully follow it all the way.
Production value was amazing and some of the scenes were absolutely stunning! Tom Hardy just flying over the coast was amazing. But Tom Hardy could not save this movie. I didn't know who was running where or if this person had died yet and the lack of dialogue was no help at all.
Wouldn't watch it again

I want to start by saying I’m tired of seeing the big names in every movie I see, I think at times big name actors can take away from a movie more than benefit. Dunkirk did a great job of allowing us to focus less on the actors and more on the story. I feel this movie put me in the story and allowed to experience first hand some of the lives that were impacted.
There wasn’t a lot of character building in this movie, but that’s what I loved, I feel like I was allowed to more so build on the experience over one person’s story. Since we’re not typically used to a movie being experience based over character based, I think some may find this as a flaw. I did not. There were multiple stories and perspectives, all which immerse you into the current situation.
Christopher Nolan did a great job of creating an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness throughout the movie, I felt like I could never feel safe and constantly looked for a way out. I was on the edge of my seat for the majority of the movie.
**Dunkirk was a great roller coaster ride that allowed a view one may otherwise never experience.**

_Dunkirk_ was my best mate's favourite film of 2017. I find it difficult to understand exactly what drew him to this film so strongly. I find it difficult to say anything passionate about _Dunkirk_ at all. I think I arguably felt some tension in the earlier moments, and some of the shots were beautiful... I think? I honestly can't remember. _Dunkirk_ washed over me in the least impactful way possible, and then, like the tide, it was gone.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Dunkirk is a beautiful and unconventional World War 2 epic that is undoubtedly captivating, but it takes risks that may alienate some viewers.
When people talk about a film they think it's about the setting, but it's actually about the characters. Saving Private Ryan isn't about World War 2. It tells a story about a squad of soldiers tasked with finding a young Private Ryan and getting him back safely to his family. Saying Dunkirk is a film about the Battle of Dunkirk however, is not inaccurate. The setting and characters are one. The choppy waters of the English Channel are equally as important, if not more so than the people who fought and died in them. As much as this makes for an interesting way to make a mainstream war film, it's also the reason why I wouldn't care to sit through it again. In some ways, it feels like watching a documentary with the narration turned off.
I walked away impressed, and at the same time emotionally and intellectually unfulfilled.

Tense film draws you to a doomed group.
Those how are veteran war historians will quibble at some parts of Dunkirk, notably the separation of English and French troops in evacuation and the ships used to evacuate them. Dunkirk uses a few conceits to keep you involved. The first, which adds a notable amount of tension to the film, is a ticking clock in the background moving you to the final day. We see intercut scenes from different periods, prior, during and enacting the rout.
Acting is excellent throughout, and versimilitude is achieved with models of aircraft, uniforms, landing stages and so on. Injections of friendship and subsequent loss direct our affection to the sufferers. Harry Styles is more than competent as a young troop and Kenneth Branagh brings integrity and verve to his role as a tired and firm leader. If one oversight might have been addressed, it is the lack of focus on the German side of things in this affair. Our few glimpses are of German fighters and so on, with very explanation of the goings-on at the front.
Overall an excellent war movie meant to be among your top ten, if not top five (It will be hard to dislodge All Quiet on the Western Front, Apocalypse Now, Paths of Glory, Saving Private Ryan and Tora Tora Tora!, among others). Recommend highly a good 8/10.